Find tables by name

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds specific behavioral context: 'Tables blocked by this server's policy are omitted, and the count of omissions reported.' This is valuable beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant information, and every sentence adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema, but the tool is simple (lists tables). The description explains omission behavior. Parameter coverage is complete. Could mention return structure, but not critical for this straightforward listing tool. With good annotations, it's sufficiently complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what is in the schema, except implicitly linking 'contains' to substring matching. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The title 'Find tables by name' and description clearly state the tool searches tables by system name or label. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like servicenow_query_table (which queries records) and servicenow_describe_table (which describes a specific table).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly tells when to use: to convert user words like 'the change requests' into system names for other tools. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use, the context from sibling tools provides implicit guidance. The mention of omitted tables and count report adds practical usage advice.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.